I think the ST:5 version works for the TMP ship, but not for the TOS ship. If you discard all the hallway scenes from "Journey To Babel" and "Immunity Syndrome" and maybe even "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" it would be possible to imagine the TMP/TFF setup on the TOS ship, IMHO.
TOS Enterprise Shuttle Storage?
- Thread starter Auroratrek
- Start date
I think the ST:5 version works for the TMP ship, but not for the TOS ship. If you discard all the hallway scenes from "Journey To Babel" and "Immunity Syndrome" and maybe even "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" it would be possible to imagine the TMP/TFF setup on the TOS ship, IMHO.
Pardon my quick'n'dirty brutalizing of Probert's familiar sketch:
Basically, this is how I see all the three ships being essentially the same. Each has this big cargo cavity in the middle of the secondary hull, although only the TOS ship has it extending down to the circular ventral hatch. Each has three elevators, but only in the TMP version are they exposed, thanks to advances in forcefield tech. In the others, they inhabit a separate compartment where shuttlecraft are kept at readiness, behind a pair of rolling doors (with a turbolift between them in ST5:TFF, and a turbolift or corridor or perhaps both between them in TOS).
Only the TMP version also strips off the inner side walls of the flight deck, eliminating the corridors beyond (and substituting workbee hives). The other two have the transverse observation deck, with windows both into the flight deck and into the paired hangar-elevators.
Oh, and the TMP and ST5:TFF ships have vertical warp cores, a bit farther aft than Probert postulated, while the TOS ship has some other sort of setup above the cargo area plus horizontal leads to the stems of the pylons.
Timo Saloniemi
Basically, this is how I see all the three ships being essentially the same. Each has this big cargo cavity in the middle of the secondary hull, although only the TOS ship has it extending down to the circular ventral hatch. Each has three elevators, but only in the TMP version are they exposed, thanks to advances in forcefield tech. In the others, they inhabit a separate compartment where shuttlecraft are kept at readiness, behind a pair of rolling doors (with a turbolift between them in ST5:TFF, and a turbolift or corridor or perhaps both between them in TOS).
Only the TMP version also strips off the inner side walls of the flight deck, eliminating the corridors beyond (and substituting workbee hives). The other two have the transverse observation deck, with windows both into the flight deck and into the paired hangar-elevators.
Oh, and the TMP and ST5:TFF ships have vertical warp cores, a bit farther aft than Probert postulated, while the TOS ship has some other sort of setup above the cargo area plus horizontal leads to the stems of the pylons.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo, just to clarify for the TOS version - how are you handling the hallways and foyer that lead into the shuttle area? I've approached this problem in 3D and there are only a couple of good ways to do it. But if you're not using them, then you've got more options. Just curious 
Pardon my quick'n'dirty brutalizing of Probert's familiar sketch:
Basically, this is how I see all the three ships being essentially the same. Each has this big cargo cavity in the middle of the secondary hull, although only the TOS ship has it extending down to the circular ventral hatch. Each has three elevators, but only in the TMP version are they exposed, thanks to advances in forcefield tech. In the others, they inhabit a separate compartment where shuttlecraft are kept at readiness, behind a pair of rolling doors (with a turbolift between them in ST5:TFF, and a turbolift or corridor or perhaps both between them in TOS).
Only the TMP version also strips off the inner side walls of the flight deck, eliminating the corridors beyond (and substituting workbee hives). The other two have the transverse observation deck, with windows both into the flight deck and into the paired hangar-elevators.
Oh, and the TMP and ST5:TFF ships have vertical warp cores, a bit farther aft than Probert postulated, while the TOS ship has some other sort of setup above the cargo area plus horizontal leads to the stems of the pylons.
Timo Saloniemi
And overly tall too (or just not that wide?) It seems that the set builders missed a decimal or something as the shuttlebay doors and the whole set seems stretched vertically. Weird!
An interesting thought. Evidently the designers of the TMP refit weren't overly concerned that the shuttlebay extended beneath the where the support pylons connect to the secondary hull. With that in mind then why couldn't the TOS shuttlebay do the same?
Recall the only detail of the shuttlebay's fore bulkhead are the drawings in TMoST and FJ's Constitution blueprints and tech manual. That fore bulkhead is never actually shown onscreen in TOS. Yeah, we see it in TFF, but I would discount that since the TOS E is a completely different ship.
Here's another old composite for the fun of it.
Recall the only detail of the shuttlebay's fore bulkhead are the drawings in TMoST and FJ's Constitution blueprints and tech manual. That fore bulkhead is never actually shown onscreen in TOS. Yeah, we see it in TFF, but I would discount that since the TOS E is a completely different ship.
Here's another old composite for the fun of it.
Well, while it is true that we never saw the forward bulkhead in TOS, Jefferies had intended it to be there and had a specific length of flight deck in mind. It is one of the data points I've collected together in my research.
Granted, my research is based on how Jefferies saw the Enterprise rather than what was seen on screen (in TOS) or listed in canonical sources (all screen references in Trek?), so I don't expect anyone to follow my lead on this... but I thought I'd throw it into the mix (along with my very early sketch of the shuttle facilities).
Looking through this thread, it is interesting that anyone would want to impose aircraft carrier standards on the Enterprise shuttlecraft facilities when there are far better (closer) models within the navy.
When I was growing up in Coronado, the ships that most people noticed were the carriers, which were interesting for me because it gave me a sizing reference. But when looking at operations like the handling of small craft, I thought that the command ship USS Coronado was a better comparison. Granted, the flight deck of the Coronado is more than twice the length of the one on the Enterprise, but at the time it was the best real world comparison I had on hand (for limited small craft operations).
Just thought I'd share some thought on the topic.
Well, while it is true that we never saw the forward bulkhead in TOS, Jefferies had intended it to be there and had a specific length of flight deck in mind. It is one of the data points I've collected together in my research.
Granted, my research is based on how Jefferies saw the Enterprise rather than what was seen on screen (in TOS) or listed in canonical sources (all screen references in Trek?), so I don't expect anyone to follow my lead on this... but I thought I'd throw it into the mix (along with my very early sketch of the shuttle facilities).
Looking through this thread, it is interesting that anyone would want to impose aircraft carrier standards on the Enterprise shuttlecraft facilities when there are far better (closer) models within the navy.
When I was growing up in Coronado, the ships that most people noticed were the carriers, which were interesting for me because it gave me a sizing reference. But when looking at operations like the handling of small craft, I thought that the command ship USS Coronado was a better comparison. Granted, the flight deck of the Coronado is more than twice the length of the one on the Enterprise, but at the time it was the best real world comparison I had on hand (for limited small craft operations).
Just thought I'd share some thought on the topic.
I'd like to take that thread of looking for a different model and say you need to look at a Ticonderoga class cruiser as your model for air ops for the big E. A Tico can only operate one of it's two birds at a time as the deck is only large enough for one aircraft. The other is stored in the hangar or airborne.
You don't need to handle your support craft quickly as that's not your primary mission.
I would imagine that embark/debark of the shuttles happens in the hangar and they are launched form the landing bay which would be two seperate but connected facilities. How they are placed in the hull is still up in the air.
That's great - I particularly like the way you've rescaled the crewman next to the shuttle, those crafts were BIG
Clearly at some point the decision was made make the shuttlebay larger than Jefferies had initially allowed for - probably for visual impact.
In fact, shuttles and auxiliary craft have gained greater importance with each new updating of Trek - in TMP the facility is opened up into the massive cargo bay and throughout the movies they're always taking shuttles to board ship. In TNG shuttles are used as private excursion vehicles (despite being limited to sub light!) and in VOY as scouting and survey vessels.
With the way TOS was originally envisioned, a small shuttlebay does work (as Birdog said, it's not your primary mission so devoting a high percentage of your ship to it doesn't make a lot of sense). And with transporters and sensor beams, there a very few occasions where it would be necessary to risk going outside the mothership (another of Jefferies’ concerns). However, the way Trek ended up strongly points to an enlarged shuttlebay facility (if going by on-screen evidence, as opposed to author intent).
Not during the production of TOS... and as Jefferies was asked to revisit the Enterprise in the Summer/Fall of 1977 (well after both the Joseph Technical Manual and Booklet of General Plans had been released) and didn't feel any need to diverge from his original view of the hangar bay, it doesn't seem that he considered it an issue.
Your response was predictable (having read the thread) and was why I hadn't offered any comment before and said what I said about not expecting anyone to follow my lead on this. I was just offering the historical data on the subject in case anyone was interested, and not my opinions (other than the comment on using current carriers as a model for shuttle craft operations).
The best person to direct comments to on that data would be Jefferies, not me. I didn't design this stuff (any more than anyone not part of TOS production... including those who worked on later Trek), so I accept no credit or blame.
Of course the way Trek ended up is Trek other than TOS. But if we are talking about STXI, then you are absolutely correct.
Except that the decision was made (by someone) to approve & build a much larger shuttlebay set than could actually fit in the space behind the pylon bulkheads.
If I could make use of Shaw's diagram, this is how the shuttlebay would appear if confined to that space:
In terms of a small dedicated facility, not often used (such as was discussed with respect to the Ticonderoga class cruiser) this makes good sense. However, compare that to what we actually got in "The Galileo Seven":
Granted, the set was built with forced perspective, bu it's clearly a much bigger room! As I said earlier, I suspect this was done for dramatic reasons.
It's interesting that FJ made use of a much larger shuttlebay than Jefferies:
FJ not withstanding, there's clearly two Enterprises here - the one Jefferies intended, and the one we got on our screens.
The Jeffriesprise looks to hold together better in terms of structure (at least from a 20th Century engineering standpoint) and is more common sense in terms of what goes where and how big it is.
The TVprise has been altered with respect to directors' choice of shots and use of set (such as corridors leading into the the shuttlebay) and limitations on what could actually be build on a TV budget, plus the "visual impact" choices of certain designs (larger shuttlebay, bridge orientation etc).
Last edited:
Hehe - I know, counter-intuitive. (Actually, recreating the Enterprise in 3D based primarily on what's been presented on screen has been interesting!
) I picked aircraft carrier standards for these reasons (based on visual cues and reviewing the episodes where shuttles are involved)
1. Shuttles typically come in on a narrow landing corridor. Even at slow speeds, the final part of the corridor is still constricted to the narrow entrance.
2. The control booths at the entrance are a collision hazard.
3. The landing point is half-covered by the hull overhang (narrow landing corridor)
4. The launch and landing rails/tracks (I know for the model
) that is analogous to dual purpose catapults and arresting gear.5. The lighting system on the fantail that looks like an Optical Landing System for manual control landing.
Basing it on a helicopter landing system didn't work for me because the approach corridor is quite large and the danger of bumping into a structure is smaller. The Star Trek equivalent would be to try and land the helicopter right into the enclosed hangar on the Ticonderoga or Coronado.
Interestingly, the closest analogy would be the small craft bay of an amphibious attack ship
I'm with Mytran about the "two sides" to the Enterprise.
There is the
1. designer's intent for a small bay and how things were suppose to operate and
2. what we ended up getting from 3 years of episodes and how things operated.
I think each side is equally valid. However, for recreating scenes from the episodes, it is alot easier for me to reverse-engineer the ship's features
It should be pointed out that the shots we see of the shutllecraft in the flight bay on TOS are out of scale. I've done composites of the shot with a more properly scaled shuttlecraft (based on my drawings) and the craft ends up taking a noticeable amount of more room. It's still manageable, but it is bigger.
I think figuring out the hangar deck is very much like when I was figuring out how large my shuttlecraft would come out to. You have to do some detective work and judge for yourself what information takes precedence. You also have to decide what you want to accomplish. For myself I wanted a shuttlecraft that could exist as a "real" vehicle. That meant I tried to reason what Jefferies initially intended and balance that with what we actually saw.
The drawings in TMoST are an okay starting point, but I wouldn't give them the final word. I'd have to see how consistent it was with what we saw onscreen and balance between the two. The FJ drawings I'd give less weight to because he diverged in so many things when drawing up those plans.
Personally I'd opt for extending the flight deck fore bulkhead forward a bit even underneath the pylons. I simply think that gives the area more flexibility. I could suggest that the are below the flight deck were simply maintenance shops and that storage was locate fore of the flight deck we saw. That would be one way.
This is what it would look like with a more properly sized shuttlecraft, albeit a class H which a bit longer than a Class F although the craft's height and width are the same.
This is a quick and dirty reference I threw together as a starting point for what I might do with the hangar area. Note I've also scaled up the Shuttlecraft to be better representative of actual size.
I think figuring out the hangar deck is very much like when I was figuring out how large my shuttlecraft would come out to. You have to do some detective work and judge for yourself what information takes precedence. You also have to decide what you want to accomplish. For myself I wanted a shuttlecraft that could exist as a "real" vehicle. That meant I tried to reason what Jefferies initially intended and balance that with what we actually saw.
The drawings in TMoST are an okay starting point, but I wouldn't give them the final word. I'd have to see how consistent it was with what we saw onscreen and balance between the two. The FJ drawings I'd give less weight to because he diverged in so many things when drawing up those plans.
Personally I'd opt for extending the flight deck fore bulkhead forward a bit even underneath the pylons. I simply think that gives the area more flexibility. I could suggest that the are below the flight deck were simply maintenance shops and that storage was locate fore of the flight deck we saw. That would be one way.
This is what it would look like with a more properly sized shuttlecraft, albeit a class H which a bit longer than a Class F although the craft's height and width are the same.
This is a quick and dirty reference I threw together as a starting point for what I might do with the hangar area. Note I've also scaled up the Shuttlecraft to be better representative of actual size.
It's interesting that FJ made use of a much larger shuttlebay than Jefferies:
FJ did little more than transpose the Jefferies drawing of the forced perspective set, so he got off on the wrong foot right from the get-go (not a slam; it's a relatively recent deduction that the drawing was of the miniature set and not a straight cross section of the full-size section of the ship).
So, when are you gonna slap some nacelles on that bad boy?
It's interesting that FJ made use of a much larger shuttlebay than Jefferies:
FJ did little more than transpose the Jefferies drawing of the forced perspective set, so he got off on the wrong foot right from the get-go (not a slam; it's a relatively recent deduction that the drawing was of the miniature set and not a straight cross section of the full-size section of the ship).
Well, we don't really know whether FJ realized the Jefferies drawing was of the forced perspctive set or not, I suspect that he did, but in any case, something like what he (FJ) drew would be necessary to come even close to matching what we see on screen. Especially when we consider the relationship of the turntable elevator to the alcoves on the sides of the bay, and then this inturn with the available space below for said elevator to lower into (remember, it has to clear that fantail).
I wouldn't characterize it as "three years of episodes" since it was only filmed once and reused four times.
As for what FJ knew and when he knew it, I think it's safe to say that he had no idea it was of a forced perspective miniature set, there was nothing in TMoST to indicate it was, and I'd say most of fandom didn't know (and a lot probably still don't) and besides, it provided a lot more room than ending it at the pylons, so he probably would've gone with it anyway.
As for what FJ knew and when he knew it, I think it's safe to say that he had no idea it was of a forced perspective miniature set, there was nothing in TMoST to indicate it was, and I'd say most of fandom didn't know (and a lot probably still don't) and besides, it provided a lot more room than ending it at the pylons, so he probably would've gone with it anyway.
Agreed, there's a happy medium there somewhere.
I'd say no further than halfway into the pylon. That should leave enough room for the necessary conduits to and from the nacelles, as well as some sort of conveyance apparatus to get up there (not enough room for a turbolift; probably some sort of conveyor belt with hand and foot holds, like John Byrne set up in his "Crew" miniseries).
Similar threads
